The vulnerability context

The vulnerability context consist of three aspects; namely, shocks, trends and seasonality. According Payne and Lipton 1994 cited by Scoones (1998) the ability of the livelihoods to cope with and recover from stresses and shocks are central to the definition of sustainable livelihoods. Those who are not able to cope (temporary adjustments) or adapt (longer term shifts in livelihood strategies) are certainly vulnerable and have few opportunities and chances to attain sustainable livelihoods. Assessing resilience and the ability to adapt positively or cope successfully requires an analysis of a range of factors, including an evaluation of historical experiences of responses to various kinds of shocks and stresses.

43

Different types of shock or stress, in turn, may result in different responses, including avoidance, repartitioning, and resistance or tolerance mechanisms (DFID, 1999).

The vulnerability context can demolish the capital and the opportunities available to the people, and the impact could be far reaching (DFID, 1999). The vulnerability context has different effects on different people (de Sagte et al., 2002 and Ramashala, 2007). The DFID (1999) argued that poor people are unable to control these factors in the short and medium terms. It is important to identify indirect ways in which these factors can be neutralised (DFID, 1999). This can be achieved through understanding how people forecast, address, and recover from shocks and stress (de Sagte et al., 2002). The DFID (1999) pointed out that the vulnerability context does not always affect people‟s livelihoods in the negative way. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the majority of the poor cannot cope with shocks and stresses, and are not well equipped to capitalise on positive trends (DFID, 1999). Devereux et al., (2006) argued that vulnerability is the product of threats and the ability to manage them. When it comes to shock the vulnerable group will almost always require external help to prevent or deal with the effects of shocks (Ramashala, 2007).

The DFID 1999 describe shocks as most unpredictable and unforeseen circumstances. Shocks include natural disasters, civil unrest etc. As an example of a natural disaster, Speight (2001) as cited by Ramashala (2007) pointed out the effect on livelihoods of the shock when certain locust species erupt into plagues and destroy crops. This means shocks could destroy capital and require even more capital to rebuild livelihoods. Similarly, the cost of controlling the locust eruption could be enormous (Speight, 2001).

CASE (2003) and DFID (1999) describe seasonality in relation to the poor as labour, price fluctuation, food availability etc. The DFID (1999) argued that seasonality is closely related to rural economics and acutely rural people than to urban people. Furthermore, Campbell and Beardmore (2001) cited by Ramashala (2007) argue that seasonal changes in ecosystems could present opportunities for seasonal employment. This means some seasonality could be anticipated by the people and consequently presents opportunities.

Data generated for the United Nation‟s Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Report 2008 (United Nations, 2008) portrays that 26 percent of the world‟s population was deeply trapped

44

in poverty in 2005. The World Bank (2012) hinted that the situation had improved when it was measured with purchasing parity terms, with the fraction of people with less than $1.25. Yet these developments outshine the vulnerabilities occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. The rapid developments have occurred in East Asia but this has not affected South Asia, while in Southern African countries the situation is becoming worse (World Bank, 2012). Hunger is continuously increasing with as much as one in seven people starving (World Hunger Education Service, 2012). Therefore the sub-Saharan continent is characterized as a continent crisis that is seriously affected by vulnerabilities (Nweke et al., 2002).

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) indicates that it is still occurring regularly even though cereal production has increased in few a countries (SADC, 2011). In 2001/2002 rural conditions were getting worse in many countries of the SADC region and the whole region was getting devastated with a humanitarian and food shortage crisis (United Nations Development Programme, 2003). Some affected countries have been recovering from this situation, but not all. This is because there may be other factors hindering the recovery. The SADC (2011) says that the number of people demanding more food and non- food assistance is increasing, with the estimated number reaching 4.04 million persons.

South Africa is still a riddle in many aspects. In spite of a well-performing micro economy, the country is still facing the unpleasant reputation of being the most unequal society in the world. The post-apartheid government in South Africa initiated policies to redress inequalities of income, wealth and livelihoods created by the apartheid government. Policies were anticipated to improve access to productive resources and technical support that would have positive impact in agricultural productivity for black farmers, who comprise a large number of smallholders in the country. But recent studies have shown that these policy objectives have not been met especially in the black population (Klasen 1997, May et al., 1998; Klasen and Woolard, 2005; UNDP 2003 and UNDP, 2007). The studies have pin- pointed the worst situation of unemployment rates, the poverty rates, the Gini Coefficient, and Consumption Expenditure Growth. South Africa‟s employment rate has been deteriorating since 1993. Whereas government had the objective of lowering the unemployment rate to about 14percent, it was still lingering around 25-40percent in 2011 (The Economist, 2011). The Eastern Cape provincial data suggest that the Province has about 30-70percent (May et al., 1998; Department of Labour, 2003).

45

The data available show the high poverty in the country is going hand in hand with the highest levels of income inequality in the world (HSRC, 1996; Klasen, 1997; Lam, 1999 andUNDP, 2007). According to the UNDP (2007), the estimated Gini co-efficient for South Africa in 2006 was 0.59. The Gini coefficient rose to 0.66 and 0.68 depending on whether it was computed on the basis of the All Media and Products Survey (AMPS) or the Income and Expenditures Survey (IES) of the Statistics South Africa (The Presidency, 2009). In 2012, this index worsened further to 0.69 (Westaway, 2012). Such a result is consistent with the fact that, among the Medium Human Development countries to which South Africa is placed by the UNDP, it is one of the few whose Human Development Indices actually deteriorated since the early 1990s, having fallen from 0.735 in 1990 to 0.653 in 2004 (UNDP, 2006). In 2011, this index fell to 0.619 (UNDP, 2011), again highlighting the worsening welfare performance.

The Department of Land Affairs/Department of Agriculture (2005) reports the Expenditure Survey of South Africa that indicates that consumption growth decreased to less than 1percent per capita per annum over 1994 and 2000. Recent figures reported in the Development Indicators show some improvement averaged at 3.7 percent since 2003 (The Presidency, 2010). In spite of these improvements that were identified, the level of poverty is still increasing in the country. According to the Development Indicators 2010, while 70percent of the GDP is earned by the richest 20percent of the population, the poorest 10percent of the population is receiving only 0.6percent of the GDP (The Presidency, 2010). This picture agrees with the trend in the Poverty Headcount Index which suggests that up to 48percent of the population might still be living below the poverty line set at R524 to accommodate the increased uptake of social grants in the rural areas (The Presidency, 2010).